In: Operations Management
Wilson was an agent of Noland. Peterson did not know Wilson was Noland's agent; Peterson did not know Wilson was anyone's agent. (Noland did not want anyone except Wilson to know of the agency). Wilson caused Peterson to suffer significant damages. Noland did not breach a duty of care either with respect to hiring or retaining Wilson. Within the time set by the applicable statute of limitations, Peterson sues Noland, seeking compensation for her damages. Peterson cannot show that Wilson owed her a duty of care. Will Peterson prevail?
A Thumbs Up! Would be really helpful for me. If you have any questions, please leave a comment and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
No, As my perspective after reading that case Peterson did not prevail because he suffered by his own mistake to not a verifying agent. He should demand any identity of the company agent by Wilson who came in front of Peterson. There all of the mistakes done by only Peterson while signing any kind of deal with Wilson.
Peterson did not anyone in Noland company except Wilson and here he found that not any Wilson is an agent in Noland company. Within the time which set by the applicable statute of limitations, if Peterson sues Noland for any compensation for her damages from Noland company then there is not any responsibility of Noland company came because as per Noland guidelines they already said that to make any kind of deal with the agent first check their identity to prevent any cause of damages. Here Peterson did the same type of mistake and the company will not compensate any kind of claim for Peterson. So here Peterson should register a complaint to the judiciary against Wilson.